Incredible story about facial recognition and how far it’s gone

[bbhero]

Discussion is good my personal feel is this is not cut and dry but who knows, public opinion is also a strong motivator for better or worse.
Either way many companies would not risk a public relations nightmare kicking Girl Scout mom out of a Christmas Show except for a Nolan company. I know everyone loves him for his cable TV company. (Sarcasm)

For those interested read this through. That means TO THE END
https://www.business2community.com/...use-service-businesses-discrimination-0766551

Read that...

Would if I asked boy wonder who wrote that story has ever considered if say a BBQ company owned and operated by people who have a different phenotype should be forced by their government to cater a party / event for a very nasty pro discrimination group ?

The difference here is obviously having your business providing a service to and going to an event...

In a case like this do the business owners have a right to refuse to do that ??

I think they most assuredly do have that right to say no.

I still who's the " winner" in a court case circumstance like this I wonder ?

I asked questions like this to a looney tunes person one time and I might have well hit him in the face with a square shovel.... He had never, ever, ever considered this possiblity and that was extremely obvious. Because this person exists only in a bubble in which everyone around him thinks and believes in lock step with what he believes.

 

[alarmguy]

Read that...

Would if I asked boy wonder who wrote that story has ever considered if say a BBQ company owned and operated by people who have a different phenotype should be forced by their government to cater a party / event for a very nasty pro discrimination group ?

The difference here is obviously having your business providing a service to and going to an event...

In a case like this do the business owners have a right to refuse to do that ??

I think they most assuredly do have that right to say no.

I still who's the " winner" in a court case circumstance like this I wonder ?

I asked questions like this to a looney tunes person one time and I might have well hit him in the face with a square shovel.... He had never, ever, ever considered this possiblity and that was extremely obvious. Because this person exists only in a bubble in which everyone around him thinks and believes in lock step with what he believes.

A judge agrees with boy wonder as you call him and put a restraining order on Dolans attorney policy.
An attorney entered a banned to him event just a couple days ago, so I guess as you call “boy wonder” has a good point

https://nypost.com/2022/12/22/lawye...-to-see-jerry-seinfeld-by-disguising-himself/

I’m not sure why or what point people don’t see that being arrogant with the pubic in public events on prime private properties across the United States might not raise some red flags if that person should even be allowed to have or own those prime properties. If these types of circumstances against the public will take place.
Private property is only private property in the public domain.
Think about that and what might happen if the public gets irritated enough, where politicians and lawmakers have to take action against that landowner, don’t think just because some rich billionaire owns a lot of property that he can start banning certain groups of people who he might have a vendetta with.

Don’t misunderstand me I am not saying the court will not ultimately rule in Dolan‘s favor, but let’s not be arrogant enough to think when dealing with public venues, things may not be as cut and dry as you may think.
There were so many things that can be done if there is an enough public outrage.

Let’s not forget public venues need proper permits to operate events, oops there’s an easy way out.
I’m just discussing topics here and possibilities in the public domain. Things are not quite as cut and dry, because technically the public is in control of those properties not Mr. Dolan.

 

[PandaBear]

The problem here isn't facial recognition at all, they can hire people searching your name in LinkedIn when you scan the ticket and boot you out, same thing really.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Ok, now you've made me do it! I'm breaking out the lawyer jokes.
What's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer? One is a scum sucking bottom dweller. The other is a fish.
What do you call a bus load of lawyers at the bottom of a lake? A good start.
A lawyer fell off of a boat. A great white shark swam up to him. The lawyer grabbed his fin and the shark swam him back to the boat. The other boaters asked, in amazement, how he survived, and got the shark to assist. The lawyer replied "It was nothing. Just a professional courtesy."
If you make me, I can go on...
The trouble with the belief that Dolan's policy will rile the masses is the only group he is discriminating against are lawyers. Lawyers employed by slip and fall law firms. Firms that have active lawsuits against him. I maintain that most people hate these lawyers and the firms that employ them, and will cheer on any effort to ban them. What makes this story unique is the use of facial recognition tech.
As to the Temporary Restraining Order, you can get one against a ham sandwich. I am interested to see if the lawyers have enough power over that judge to make it permanent.
For the record, I don't hate lawyers. I've had a couple of great ones.

 

[bbhero]

A judge agrees with boy wonder as you call him and put a restraining order on Dolans attorney policy.
An attorney entered a banned to him event just a couple days ago, so I guess as you call “boy wonder” has a good point

https://nypost.com/2022/12/22/lawye...-to-see-jerry-seinfeld-by-disguising-himself/

I’m not sure why or what point people don’t see that being arrogant with the pubic in public events on prime private properties across the United States might not raise some red flags if that person should even be allowed to have or own those prime properties. If these types of circumstances against the public will take place.
Private property is only private property in the public domain.
Think about that and what might happen if the public gets irritated enough, where politicians and lawmakers have to take action against that landowner, don’t think just because some rich billionaire owns a lot of property that he can start banning certain groups of people who he might have a vendetta with.

Don’t misunderstand me I am not saying the court will not ultimately rule in Dolan‘s favor, but let’s not be arrogant enough to think when dealing with public venues, things may not be as cut and dry as you may think.
There were so many things that can be done if there is an enough public outrage.

Let’s not forget public venues need proper permits to operate events, oops there’s an easy way out.
I’m just discussing topics here and possibilities in the public domain. Things are not quite as cut and dry, because technically the public is in control of those properti

I believe in private property rights...

You don't evidently ??? Maybe I am wrong here to be fair.

Public domain... Yeah that's a nebulus term if I have ever heard one...

Ok... Hotels, right?? Stores right ??

Stadiums too ?? Hmmmm... Ok.

Yeah that's been decided. I agree.

No problem with that either. I'm good with that.

Look up the Marsh supreme Court case from 1946... Very interesting case there.
Read up on that case. . It is very supportive of what you are saying here.


However guess what ???

If the billionaires won't allow certain people or certain groups of people into a stadium or restaurant or hotel they own... Then I definitely will not go there either.

I will never knowingly give that individual any of my money....

But the real question is still there ...

And it's a very different question.

Can... Or should any ruling authority FORCE people to do business with and or have themselves and their service be BROUGHT into another groups event... If they are 180 degrees in disagreement with those people holding that event.....

What I stated there is a different in my strong opinion.

Should people who are running a BBQ business that are owned by minorities be forced to take the business of catering a very pro discrimination group ??

I do not think so. Absolutely not.

Neither should people who have a cake business who can't stand firearms be FORCED by the ruling authority to make a cake in the shape of a ak 47 for a very pro firearm group.


They should have a right to say no to having their business be forcibly be a part of a event which they very strongly disagree with.

So do you believe in people being forced to participate in another groups event ?

 

[alarmguy]

I believe in private property rights...

You don't evidently ??? Maybe I am wrong here to be fair.

Public domain... Yeah that's a nebulus term if I have ever heard one...

Ok... Hotels, right?? Stores right ??

Stadiums too ?? Hmmmm... Ok.

Yeah that's been decided. I agree.

No problem with that either. I'm good with that.

Look up the Marsh supreme Court case from 1946... Very interesting case there.
Read up on that case. . It is very supportive of what you are saying here.


However guess what ???

If the billionaires won't allow certain people or certain groups of people into a stadium or restaurant or hotel they own... Then I definitely will not go there either.

I will never knowingly give that individual any of my money....

But the real question is still there ...

And it's a very different question.

Can... Or should any ruling authority FORCE people to do business with and or have themselves and their service be BROUGHT into another groups event... If they are 180 degrees in disagreement with those people holding that event.....

What I stated there is a different in my strong opinion.

Should people who are running a BBQ business that are owned by minorities be forced to take the business of catering a very pro discrimination group ??

I do not think so. Absolutely not.

Neither should people who have a cake business who can't stand firearms be FORCED by the ruling authority to make a cake in the shape of a ak 47 for a very pro firearm group.


They should have a right to say no to having their business be forcibly be a part of a event which they very strongly disagree with.

So do you believe in people being forced to participate in another groups event ?

But they didn’t say no, they sold him a ticket. Just playing devils advocate and was curious about a range of thoughts in here.

It is what it is and the court will decide what is. Right now a judge issued a temporary restraining order allowing an attorney to attend events until the case is heard further.
I like to look at things from all angles and I am biased against giant companies and billionair CEOs determining who can attend public events on their properties based on if they like them or not.

They operate under permits issued by us so I’m not so clear that they can ban anyone they want for any reason.

We will know one day if they can!
Good response BTW but I don’t feel the examples you gave about the baker and BBQ fit the same criteria. I actually agree with you on that.

Here is one thought and just a thought, discussion. Is being sold. a ticket to attend a public event in an open to the public venue a contract to attend?
Baring as stated at the entrance you they may refuse you if you pose a possible threat to the public.
I don’t know.
But as I posted the link, a judge feels the attorney, whatever he presented has merit.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I guess i don't see it that way, IMO a lawyer (or any other employee of for that matter) for a firm that has a suit against you is a perfectly valid reason to exclude someone.

Given the plaintiff had the right to sue and the right to representation, and is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system, isn't this hazardous to equal protections under the law? Law firm won't want to represent me because I am suing some big enterprise the rest of my staff may want to do business with? Seems like it could be inferred that there using this ban as a way to punish the law firm outside of the court. I imagine there is some law regarding that - no?

The 1964 law that protected based on race and religion was recently expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Maybe in this highly politicized world it would be expanded to include employment?

Can I ban anyone who works someone I don't like. Maybe I don't want to serve anyone that works for the federal government? Can I do that?

I don't know. I think if I were on a jury in a civil case I would side with the women.

This big corporation needs to grow some skin.

 

[DuckRyder]

Can I ban anyone who works someone I don't like.

See this is a click bait type headline. He did not ban people who work for "someone he doesn't like" he banned people who work for law firms that have ACTIVE CASES. Is this simply a hard concept to grasp? or are people being deliberately obtuse?

All the other stuff is just countermeasures...

This is no longer about facial recognition it is about his policy, facial recognition is simply the tool he's using to enforce his policy.

 

[BISCUT]

Again - physics suggests that what you heard in the 70s was also untrue.

There is a limit to resolution based on the physics of the camera lens and of the air through which the light must travel.

Astronomy has been working against those limits for nearly a century. While there have been advancements, reading magazine covers from space is fantasy.

So is seeing through walls without x-rays. The sensors in space are passive. And there is no part of the normal spectrum of emission that is capable of penetrating walls.

Objects emit passive radiation, based on temperature. The Planck black body curve applies. For satellites to see x-rays from an object, through walls, that object has to be roughly as hot as the sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law

Little late...Haven't had the time to reply. No doubt you are sound in your statements. Maybe too many sci-fi books and/or movies. My mind is wide open but Physics is not my strong suit. My experience is reading Hawking books. He sure does explain it well for a commoner.

 

[BISCUT]

See this is a click bait type headline. He did not ban people who work for "someone he doesn't like" he banned people who work for law firms that have ACTIVE CASES. Is this simply a hard concept to grasp? or are people being deliberately obtuse?

All the other stuff is just countermeasures...

This is no longer about facial recognition it is about his policy, facial recognition is simply the tool he's using to enforce his policy.

Well, venue is open to the public and consideration passed for entry was satisfied. Much of this may depend upon the venue and local/state laws. All of which would have to be specifically identified in writing at time of ticket purchase? Not sure but I would think so. Also seems the proper route would be to foresee this type of incident and have the entire firm served with a formal trespass notice until the case is adjudicated. But that draws an ugly picture is childish as is this move IMO. But it was his call not mine.

 

[alarmguy]

I agree with many in here that agree sort of with me *LOL*
These are mega corporations and billionaires banning people from public events in their private but publicly regulated businesses with permits that must satisfy occupancy ect. Ohhh .. heck in NYC there are dozens of permits that allow the public venue to take place, so we cant say because its private property he can do what he wants, he can not do anything without public approval and public permits to do so. He/they can not hold any events in a private building without dozens of approvals.

(Heck in NYC you can own a sandwich shop and you even need a permit to light up the sign outside!! *LOL* This involves a whole range of people including plans drawn up and approved! Thousands of dollars to get a permit to install a light on your private property)

That is one, two is who is to say "active cases" ? Ummm... how are the lists being policed to make sure this is juat active cases AND ONLY involving cases with lawsuits? Who is putting these people on the lists? It's not the owners of the property, its Joe employee who also is banning his x girlfriend jsut to get even with her.
The only reason we are talking lawsuits is because one or two people came forward. How about the mother in law, or disgruntled employee? They can be banned from the public venue operating under public permits to operate the venue too?

Im not saying right or wrong but it's not cut and dry and it will be settled in the courts one day, just wait until a non attorney situation comes up. Saying private property right exist is not completely true when the private property owner needs public approval to hold his/their event.